The agreement includes a « Green Climate Fund, » which is expected to be worth $100 billion a year by 2020, to help the poorest countries finance emissions reductions and adjustments.  There was no agreement on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, how to raise the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund, whether developing countries should have binding emission reductions, or whether rich countries should first reduce emissions.  Reuters environment correspondent Alister Doyle reported that most delegates, although they approved it, « do little. »  The outcome of the summit was an agreement adopted by the states parties, which called for the creation of a large « Green Climate Fund » as well as a « climate technology centre and network ». It expects a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. The conclusions adopted by the SBSTA and the SBI and the decisions on the COP are summarized in detail in the relevant SBI and SBSTA sections of this synthesis report. Many parties supported a « legally binding outcome, » while differences remained over what that means. Grenada stressed the importance of: a process of review of the legal form; work under the AWG-LCA; and the establishment of a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Singapore and several other AOSIS members said the outcome of the AWG-LCA should be a comprehensive, legally binding agreement that complements the Kyoto Protocol. Costa Rica requested a mandate to work towards the adoption of a legally binding instrument at COP 17. In Cancun, the EU sought clarification on the intention to achieve a legally binding outcome under the AWG-LCA and reaffirmed its commitment to commit, as part of an overall overall result, to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. COP 17. . .